TECH vrici

[I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK]

This is a horrible rag-bag of odds and ends which I never
quite got round to commenting on at the time, in a fairly
random order.

Ivan:  co'i == achievative
Since you appear to understand this concept of "achievement"
or "point event" better than most of us, could you give us
a few examples, please.

Does anyone have any good ideas how to talk about the distinct
concept of "accomplishment" in Lojban?  {mo'u}?

Colin:  seljbo
I've seen you use {seljbo} recently as if it meant "member
of the Lojban community".  Is that really what the x2 of the
culture words is?  The gismu list says "x1 reflects Lojbanic
(etc.) language/culture/nationality/community in aspect x2",
which I would interpret as saying that {lo lojbo} are members
of the community, but I'm not sure whether {lo se lojbo} are
things like language, culture, etc. or something else.

Nick:  piso'u loi mekso
> li [na'u] selcmipi'i

And I think your multi-argument {na'udu}s need to be
forethought as well.

Oh, and it would be nice to get {jo'e} and {ku'a} in there
somewhere, for completeness.

Mark/Colin:  TEST: CAFE: lo lisri pe le ckafybarja
> >> .i tu'a di'u xe ctuca fi ledu'u do cu .ei zgana pu lenu do jdice
> >I think "do" is out of place here. ".ei zgana pu lenu [vo'a] jdice" or
> >"da zgana .ei pu lenu da jdice", or more lojbanically pe'i
> >"jdice nagi'apubo .e'ucai zgana"

> Definitely.  {do} here is malglico.  It should be a general injunction, and
> use {zo'e} (possibly elided) or maybe {le'e prenu} or something.  {da} is
> not quantified right, it'd mean "There's something that should...."

Yes, it would have to be {roda}.  And {.ei} seems to have
the usual problem of referring to the narrator:
        roda zgana sei bilga pu lenu da jdice

Colin:  TECH.ADV nu denpa kei seli'e lo cmene:  voksylerfu
I have wondered what "vowels" and "consonants" were in Lojban.
Why wouldn't {voksylerfu} refer to voiced consonants as well
as vowels?

Nick:  pinkyva'i
The best alternative I could come up with for "worthy" was
{prujerna} - "having earned".  I wasn't too sure about {pinka}
either.  I wondered if {ganse} or {zgana} were appropriate.
I don't understand the difference between these two - is {zgana}
active and {ganse} passive?

Colin:  phone communications
> to .eji'a pei le seljbo pamei toi
Strangely enough, an ek appears to be grammatical on its own,
though not with a following sumti.  And a jek is grammatical
at the start of _any_ text(?).

Colin:  su'osu'epa
I've worked out what I was trying to do the other day - it's
{da se pamei lo'i tadji be li'o}.

Iain.